drystyx I can't call this a Western. Sure, it is set in the West, but it is far too dull to call a Western.The story is about a bonding between two guys we could care less about, and who are more gay towards each other than the men of Brokeback Mountain.The two aren't likable at all. No one is really likable. The story plods along, but it well acted, mostly by unknowns, although a few famous names are in this.In the end, we see how self righteous and insane both of these two guys are. I actually don't blame the younger brother for what he does later. To him, these two must be like terrorists, relentlessly attacking him for no reason. He's backed into a corner, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for the older brother or his red neck punk friend.Sadly, it seems evident that the director wants the viewer to empathize with the kill crazy hero. We can empathize with the mother, who is the lone sane character in this piece, and how she negotiates with the maniac. It's scary that there are people who think this maniac is identifiable and deserves any respect whatsoever.

michael swindle (dallasvaughnmichaels) Without the drive or the sulfur smell of New Mexico or West Texas, you can live there for a few minutes with this wonderful film. There is outstanding photography of the west. My favorite tag-line of the film is, while placing a big bet at poker, Big Boy jokes, " Well, if you ain't chicken, you sure got hen-house ways." I use this film to take me away to the west of the 40's. So much of the tension is displayed in that anything you say or do can get you killed and Harrelson's character does and says as he pleases. In reality of the character of Big Boy, Harrelson portrays behavior so Audie Murphy and clearly alike with Murphy in real life with combat related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Both are bulletproof in their own minds as they still exist.

StevieGB Maybe it's the age we live in, but no one seems to be able to make westerns anymore. The last consistently good period was the late 60's and early 70's, with the works of Peckinpah, Pakula (Comes a Horseman), Blake Edwards (Wild Rovers). There have been a couple of good one-off's since - "Unforgiven" and "Silverado" perhaps. But there's only so many times that you can "subvert the genre" before you start repeating yourself. Maybe it's all Mel Brooks' fault."The Hi-Lo Country" tries to be a non-pc, macho Western, but it isn't comfortable with it and this comes across to the viewer.The script is all over the place, and the film never settles on what its major conflicts are supposed to be.The highlights are Sam Elliot's performance and a poker game with tragic consequences.The film makers also haven't grasped the fact that its difficult to empathize with lead characters who are assholes and don't know it. It's that old thing of behaviour which is acceptable in a 20 year old looks bad on a 30 year old.A waste of landscape and film stock. And an irritating title.

Zilla-4 This is a wonderful movie produced by Martin Scorcese's group and is the best contemporary western I've seen since "Unforgiven". In some ways it is like a Cormac McCarthy novel brought to life. It has a mature and literate screenplay by Walon Green, is well acted by Billy Crudup and Woody Harrelson, has strong supporting performances by a large and perfectly cast group of actors (including Patricia Arquette, Katy Jurado, Sam Elliott, and Penelope Cruz), is beautifully photographed by Oliver Stapleton against spectacular backdrops in New Mexico, is very well directed by Stephen Frears, and has a haunting score by the superb Carter Burwell. Only an overly sentimental last scene weakens an otherwise great film, but the movie is still well worth seeing.